Dismissed

Jai Parkash v. Luxmi Devi and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC8 Aug 2013FAO/4147/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A single judge High Court dismissed an appeal challenging the imposition of penalty under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. The court held that adequate opportunity was provided via show cause notices and pending adjournment requests, and condoned the delay in filing the appeal.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed, affirming the impugned order punishing the appellant and directing them and the insurance company to pay compensation jointly and severally.

Jai Parkash Vs Luxmi Devi and Anr. — Service and Employment | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

FAO No.4147 of 2013 (O&M) Date of decision:08.08.2013

Jai Parkash

....Appellant

Versus

Smt. Luxmi Devi and another

¶7

....Respondents

¶8

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG

¶9

Present:Mr. Sandeep K. Sharma, Advocate for the appellant.

¶10

RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J (ORAL)

¶11

C.M.No.16746-CII-2013

¶12

For the reasons mentioned in the application, which is supported by an affidavit, delay of 17 days in re-filing the appeal, is condoned.

¶13

C.M. stands disposed of.

¶14

C.M.No.16747-CII-2013

¶15

For the reasons mentioned in the application, which is supported by an affidavit, delay of 18 days in filing the appeal, is condoned. C.M. stands disposed of.

¶16

FAO No.4147 of 2013 (O&M)

¶17

Vide order dated 05.03.2013, Commissioner, Rohtak under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 awarded compensation of ` 3,89,280/- along with interest @ 12% per annum in favour of respondent No.1 from the date of filing of the claim petition till the deposit/ payment of awarded amount on account of death of Sh. Azad Singh, who has died, during the course of his employment with the appellant.

¶18

Kadian Savita 2013.08.13 13:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

¶19

FAO No.4147 of 2013 (O&M)

¶20

-2-

¶21

While granting the compensation, vide impugned order, the Commissioner further imposed the penalty amounting to ` 1,90,000/- under Section 4 A (3) (b) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. It was further held that the amount of compensation and interest shall be payable jointly and severally by the appellant as well as respondent No.2 i.e. Insurance Company. However, the penalty amount was ordered to be paid by the appellant.

¶22

In the instant appeal, the appellant has challenged the imposition of penalty upon him on the ground that adequate opportunity was not given to him to defend himself though show cause notice was given before imposing penalty upon him.

¶23

The argument raised is belied from the record.

¶24

Admittedly, show cause notice was served upon him for 15.11.2012. Thereafter, on his request, the matter was adjourned to 27.11. 2012 and again on 10.01.2013 and thereafter, the impugned order was subsequently passed.

¶25

In view of the aforesaid un-disputed fact that on three occasions, appellant sought adjournments, is sufficient to hold that an adequate opportunity was given to the appellant to defend himself. However, appellant has failed to show any specific reason, for not imposing penalty upon him.

¶26

In these circumstances, no exception can be taken to the impugned order.

¶27

No other point has been raised.

¶28

Kadian Savita 2013.08.13 13:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

¶29

FAO No.4147 of 2013 (O&M)

¶30

-3-

¶31

No substantial question of law arises in this appeal.

¶32

Dismissed.

¶33

August 08, 2013 savita

¶34

(RAKESH KUMAR GARG) JUDGE

¶35

Kadian Savita 2013.08.13 13:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

Jai Parkash v. Luxmi Devi and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jai Parkash v. Luxmi Devi and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ram Sudhar Vs Som Parkash

M/S Bharat Textiles Mills Vs Balbir Singh

Hindu High School Vs Akhil Bhartiya Bhargav Sabha

Krishan Lal Dewan Chand & Anr. Vs Sham Bala

Hari Ram etc. Vs Shankar etc.

Satish Kumar Vs Banwari Lal & Anr.